Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Fred "smoking doesn't cause cancer <snip>" Singer.

If you are referencing experts (directly or indirectly) that claim smoking doesn't cause cancer then there is some major credibility problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to actually convince people of things, you should probably avoid blatant lies like this. I'm fairly certain that I saw you post this lie before and that I corrected you at the time, so there's no excuse for you doing it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you did I'd like to see it. Link me please.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10129525

You didn't respond to the thread again, so I'm guessing you probably didn't read it, so I'll accept that you still believed this falsehood to be true. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
George Monbiot did a short video through the BBC called the denial industry that talked about Fred Singers connection to the tobacco industry. It was on youtube but his entire series have been removed. Guessing copyright reasons. It seems only second hand smoke is on wikipedia but the wikipedia article is incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement that the Wikipedia article is incomplete on this is pure assertion. Everything I can find on the man says it's just second hand smoking he's talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Singers claim that EM radiation can't heat water well there's a copy of his report on real climate. Check out the entry "Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean". That's not on wikipedia and his bio page on wiki is missing a lot. They actually had to send a boat out in the water proving that long wave radiation can heat water. Ever heard of a heat lamp? lol He also attacks the CFC-ozone link.

If CFC's and especially the infra-red argument aren't enough for you to question his judgment and credibility then we have a real problem. If he gets something published through the AGU fine, but I would take anything published through SEPP or the Tobacco Institute with a big grain of salt. This is a line straight out of "thankyou for smoking" after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about CFC's or the "infra-red argument," so obviously I'm not going to be convinced of anything by them. Even if you could demonstrate to me that based on these views, he's a complete fruit bat, I would still have to question why you're resorting to these ad hominems rather than addressing the actual facts. The thing about ad hominem attacks isn't that they aren't valid necessarily. Convincing me that someone's a fruit bat in general certainly discredits their views on other things. The thing is that it discredits you as well, since it shows that your own argument is too weak to support on evidence alone. Considering you're the one trying to prove a belief here, that belief better be able to stand on its own evidence if it's to be convincing.